Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Finding of Fact Objections <br /> declaratory rulings was because the Circuit Court ordered Coupe Family to do so, citing <br /> primary jurisdiction. The purpose of the declaratory ruling process was to get the Planning <br /> Director's opinion, not the Board's or the Circuit Court's opinion. The Planning Director <br /> has rendered his opinion, which was then put before the Board for review in Oceanside's <br /> two appeals. As the Planning Director's Declaratory Orders turn on his interpretation of <br /> rules and laws, these are matters of law and thus the Board's examination of these Orders <br /> does not turn on the credibility of witnesses' testimonies. Rather, the question before the <br /> Board was whether the Planning Director interpreted the rules and laws correctly in <br /> applying them to a certain set of facts submitted by the petitioner. These two sentences <br /> simply clarify this point and provide the rationale that the Circuit Court requested on <br /> remand. <br /> There is nothing objectionable in the following sentence: "Nothing in Planning <br /> Department's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PRPP") Rule 3-1 or Chapter 91, Hawai`i <br /> Revised Statutes, requires Planning Director to issue a declaratory ruling to the satisfaction <br /> of the petitioner for said declaratory ruling." This sentence adds to the Board's rationale <br /> behind its decision, which is what was requested by the Circuit Court on remand. <br /> Incorporating Coupe Family's suggested edits would remedy any perceived issues on this <br /> point. <br /> The next sentence ("Planning Director was not required to inform Appellant of their [sic] <br /> legal obligations with respect to the issues raised in the Petition for a Declaratory Ruling") is <br /> also unobjectionable. Oceanside's objections to said sentence goes beyond the scope of this <br /> proceeding because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the <br /> Circuit Court only remanded for more details on the Board's decision, and also misconstrues <br /> this FOF which explains the Planning Director's Order and states the basis of the Planning <br /> Director's decision. Again,this FOF supplements the Board's Decision and Order with the <br /> detail that the Circuit Court requested on remand. <br /> Finally, there is nothing objectionable about the last sentence of this FOF starting with <br /> "Likewise, eliciting testimony showing Planning Director did not answer specific questions . <br /> . ." Oceanside's objections to said sentence goes beyond the scope of this proceeding <br /> because Oceanside is attempting to reargue the decision below whereas the Circuit Court <br /> only remanded for more details on the Board's decision. It also misconstrues this FOF which <br /> explains the Board's review of the Planning Director's Order and states the basis of the <br /> Planning Director's decision. Again, this FOF supplements the Board's Decision and Order <br /> with the detail that the Circuit Court requested on remand. <br /> In addition, Coupe Family objects to Oceanside's characterization of the Planning Director's <br /> Declaratory Order on Oceanside's Petition as containing "sua sponte"rulings—Planning <br /> Director did not issue sua sponte rulings. <br /> 16. The exhibits did not show the Order was Oceanside objects to Proposed FOF 16 on <br /> issued in error or an abuse of discretion. the grounds that it is contrary to the <br /> 13 <br />